W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [410 Gone] HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:22:42 -0500
Message-ID: <e9dffd641002242222p7e7e1630rea982acf2d16ba5c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Karl,

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> This seems to be undefined: "Clients with link editing capabilities"
> but used in two places "8.3.2 301 Moved Permanently" and "8.4.11 410 Gone".
>
>> Clients with link editing capabilities
>> SHOULD delete references to the request-target
>> after user approval.
>
> What is the scenario for this feature?

As an example (301, not 410);

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213467

I'm sure you could imagine how a 410 would be handled in that context.

> The "410 Gone" response is cacheable.
> Does that mean the server can send a body? Such as

Sure.  All responses can have a body, except HEAD responses.

> It says also that links could be removed from the original source. Do we have an example of such a working system without human help?

Not AFAIK.

> There is something which in some cases might seems contradictory:
> cacheable AND links removed. It is subtle, but an example might help understand.

Can you explain why you believe it contradictory?

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 06:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT